4 ms·
This isn't a linguistic disagreement, LGPL and similar licenses are literally forbidden by the direct plain text of the agreement. > (b) any software that is a
by paulmd 3y ago
This isn't a linguistic disagreement, LGPL and similar licenses are literally forbidden by the direct plain text of the agreement.
> (b) any software that is a modification or derivative of any software licensed under the GNU General Public License or Library or Lesser Public License, or any other license with terms similar thereto so that Customer content become subject to the terms of such license.
- adrian_b 3y agoThe complaint was not that it is not true that they have not complied with the agreement, but that this rule is only selectively enforced and that nobody truly complies with it. Moreover, the rule has no rational reason, because unlike with GPL, compliance with LGPL is very easy to achieve, even for proprietary programs.
- rerdavies 3y agoThe rule is completely rational. It is impossible to use LGPL-licensed components on the Android app store or Apple app store without becoming infected with the full GPL. (As extensively discussed throughout this thread).
- cozzyd 3y agoSounds like Apple and Google should fix their broken app stores then.
- rerdavies 3y agoThe LGPL breaks because the app stores require signed executables, and signed static libraries, which is a Very Good Thing. Sounds like people should use MIT licenses (or similar non-viral licenses) instead of LGPL licenses.